[Metadata] List of station metadata issues #167
Assignees
Comments
|
... continuation Channel band confusion in broadband and short-period: |
|
Networks already in the process of fixing issues: CZ, KO, SL (thanks!) |
Regarding this topic for network EDIT: fixed some more issues, thanks for making us aware of them |
|
@luvec the check for conjugated Poles is quite strict, basically it caught some inconsistent rounding at the fifth significant digit in our case
I'll fix it for our station in question, but maybe the check routine could be made a little bit more forgiving |
|
We also fixed Z6.A036A. Thank you for making us aware of the errors. |
|
@megies thank you very much for your prompt metadata corrections. As for renaming channels in metadata and at the same time in mseeds, I understand that this is a lot of extra work, where one also has to be careful not to 'damage' the original mseed (the question is what software to use that can change only the name of the channel without modifying anything else in mseeds). On the other hand, as a data user, I would insist (and I have the support of other users in my area) that, in the case of distinguishing whether a seismometer is broadband or shortperiod, the name of the channel is crucial and it should match. But let's see the opinions of other people here. Concerning the conjugated Poles, I agree my check is quite strict. I will try to find some conditions to decide if the values are mostly the same or different so much that it will significantly influence the instrument response. (I hope it will not take me much more time than to simply fix the metadata Poles ;) @aschloem thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Dear network and station operators,
I present the results from detailed tests of formal consistency of the StationXML files, see https://github.com/PetrColinSky/DataQuality/tree/master/ludekvecsey for description and result tables. The tests are a part of data and metadata quality tests prepared by participants of the AdriaArray Seismology group jointly with the ORFEUS User Advisory Group, see the summary of tests and the first issue opened by @PetrColinSky.
The metadata tests include validating the FDSN StationXML format, a set of controls from IRIS StationXML Validator and other tests, including checking station response, corner periods, band codes. The metadata files for this test were downloaded from EIDA on June 7, 2024 (thus some issues can already be fixed).
The station/network operators can find the maximum severity level on each station in the report file QC_AdA_severity_levels_240607.csv. The report consists of three columns: station; max severity in 2022+ epoch; max severity over all epochs. Severity levels are -1 (the station was checked and everything was ok), 0 (not important, notification about input or output units given in the wrong upper/lower case), 1 (other not important notifications), 2-3 (warnings), and 4-5 (errors). The detailed report of all issues of levels 1-5 is found in QC_AdA_metadata_issues.xlsx, see the sheet named 240607. If you would like more descriptions and remarks, please take a look at the Legend sheet.
The following part shows only the worst issues (levels 4-5). Go to QC_AdA_metadata_issues.xlsx for a complete list of issues. A header for columns shown bellow is: STATION;VALID_FROM;VALID_TO;ISSUE_ID;ISSUE_SEVERITY_LVL;ISSUE_DESCRIPTION;COMMENTS
NormalizationFrequency' is missing. ObsPy cannot read the meta:
Channel epochs overlap:
Station and Channel Latitudes/Longitudes/Elevations differ too much:
Samplerate cannot be 0 or null:
Missing Azimuth on Z component:
Invalid InputUnits for given Instrument code:
Input/OutputUnits do not follow in Stages:
Missing Decimation and StageGain in Stage:
Missing Value in InstrumentSensitivity:
StageGain.Frequency is zero in undue Stage:
Missing InstrumentSensitivity in Response:
Output samplerate from Stages not equal to Channel.SampleRate:
Samplerates do not follow in Stages:
Metadata response failures:
No Poles in PolesZerosResponseStage:
Not conjugated Poles in the PolesZerosResponseStage:
to be continued in the next post
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: